Opinion on the death penalty?

[godisgood77]

One cannot, however, accurately claim that something is a traditional teaching of the church which was not taught before 1995.

I think we need to be careful here… I not particularly care if we claim something is a traditional teaching of the Church… instead only that it is a teaching of the Catholic Church.

The claim in the first paragraph of section 2267 in the new catechism is factually incorrect.

Are you saying that the CCC is inaccurate? Is so, that is pretty bold.

I agree with Ratzinger thanks for posting. JPII has deepened the application of the doctrinal principles associated with the death penalty.

Ultimately, it is a personal decision when it comes to accepting or rejecting the Church’s teaching.

 

[Ender]

In the words of Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., (a non-Catholic), “Only God has the authority to end life on this planet. All we have is the power.”

As a non-Catholic he may believe whatever he chooses. His position, however, is directly opposed by Catholic doctrine and 2000 years of Catholic teaching. (e.g…)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal…. (Baltimore Catechism)

Has anyone read this book? By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment by Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette, published by Ignatius Press. I have heard mostly good things about it and am interested in reading it sometime in order to understand both sides of the argument.

Yes, I have read the book (and had the good fortune to discuss it with the authors). I thought it was very well written, and I agreed with almost everything they wrote.

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that the CCC is inaccurate? Is so, that is pretty bold.

Yes, that is what I am saying. The restriction that capital punishment is justified only when it is necessary for defense is not, contrary to the claim in the catechism, any part of the traditional teaching of the church. Now it is not possible to prove a negative so I cannot show that this caveat was never taught, I can only say that I have never encountered it in any of the documents I have read (6 catechisms, and the writings of at least a half dozen earlier popes, plus almost two dozen Fathers and Doctors of the Church).

It would be a simple thing to prove me wrong by finding such a source, but so far no one has come up with anything. I am supported in this position:

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Professor Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)

I agree with Ratzinger thanks for posting. JPII has deepened the application of the doctrinal principles associated with the death penalty.

I agree with Ratzinger as well: that this is the application of doctrinal principles in “present-day circumstances”, which makes them prudential, not doctrinal.

Ultimately, it is a personal decision when it comes to accepting or rejecting the Church’s teaching.

As far as prudential teachings are concerned, this is both true and acceptable.

 

[blackforest]

Coffin didn’t say never to take a life. He simply reminds us to do so very carefully and mindfully.

 

[godisgood77]

It would be a simple thing to prove me wrong by finding such a source, but so far no one has come up with anything. I am supported in this position:

The thing is that I did provide a source… the Pope, his weighty encyclical - second only to an Apostolic Constitution in authority - and the CCC which was vetted by many Cardinal’s, Bishops and Priests and promulgated by the highest authority, the Pope. Those sources trump the professor you quote in my view.

I think you just don’t like that the doctrine has deepened… I don’t know why, but it seems so.

 

[gcshapero]

The Catholic Church does not regard the death penalty as intrinsically evil and can be implemented under very specific circumstances. However, if it can be avoided, it should be.

The way the prison system is set up, at least in the West, it is not necessary. However, it used to be necessary for the sake of protecting the innocent when there was a greater risk.

When an individual decides to use self-defense against an aggressor and ends up killing the individual, it can still be valid. For instance, if a dangerous intruder comes into his house and is going to cause harm to his family, he can do what he needs to do to stop him whether that be shooting him, stabbing him, bashing him with a bat – whatever. However, it must be motivated out of protection of his family and not with the intention of killing. If the intruder does die however, this man was still in his right if this was not his direct intention.

 

[Ender]

The thing is that I did provide a source… the Pope, his weighty encyclical - second only to an Apostolic Constitution in authority - and the CCC which was vetted by many Cardinal’s, Bishops and Priests and promulgated by the highest authority, the Pope. Those sources trump the professor you quote in my view.

I think you just don’t like that the doctrine has deepened… I don’t know why, but it seems so.

No - you cannot prove something is part of the “traditional teaching of the church” by citing something that wasn’t written until 1995. Something part of the traditional teaching means something taught in the past, and for a document published in 1997 (the catechism) to cite something written in 1995 hardly meets that requirement. Here’s what I’m talking about regarding the traditional teaching:

Innocent I 405
Augustine 410
Innocent III 1210
Aquinas 1260
Paul III 1540
Catechism of Trent 1560…

I can make dozens of citations from these and other sources all referring to the death penalty, not one of which includes the caveat mentioned in 2267. The “traditional” teaching did not originate in 1995.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Solitary confinement. True solitary confinement i.e. they may have space, even outside space, but no contact with anyone, including guards. Meals put through a hatch so no risk. The only thing may be medical care and I’m hoping that someone in a situation to need it isn’t going to be in a position to attack someone.

Long-term solitary confinement (say more than a few days or maybe weeks) is actually a hideous form of punishment that really helps no one in the long run. It takes people who often already have serious mental health problems and makes them far worse. I would encourage you to read up on it. Also, I recommend this Frontline documentary that aired on PBS: Solitary Nation.

The only thing may be medical care and I’m hoping that someone in a situation to need it isn’t going to be in a position to attack someone.

Their mental illness is often so exacerbated from solitary that they will attack anyone. Suicide attempts are also high.

 

[1john418]

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999
Twenty-five years ago, our Conference of bishops first called for an end to the death penalty. We renew this call to seize a new moment and new momentum. This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

I’d disagree. In fact, it seems the Church is against the death penalty in all these quotes. I’m no scholar, but I have heard from a Theology teacher that the Church would be in favor of the death penalty in situations where it’s necessary politically (i.e. person in question has control over govt’/police and would be broken out of prison in a third world country.

Regarding your objection to repentance, I think it’s a complicated issue. But, here’s the other aspect of that. If someone truly does repent on death row, should that person still be put to death? It raises other ethical/moral dilemmas.

 

[semper_catholicus]

In that case it wouldn’t be murder; it would be the punishment that the criminal deserves.

 

[godisgood77]

No - you cannot prove something is part of the “traditional teaching of the church” by citing something that wasn’t written until 1995.

I’m not trying to prove something is part of the ‘traditional’ teaching of the Church… only that it is part of the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching is living. If it happened before of after 1995 doesn’t matter in the slightest.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A teaching cannot develop such that what was moral yesterday is immoral today.

I refer you to the Church’s approval of burning heretics to the stake six hundred years ago.

It was viewed as a moral responsibility to protect the faith, but is no longer viewed that way, thank God.

Jim

 

[Athanasiy]

I believe that it is better to give life centence prisoners the opportunity to work and benefit society

 

[Jr16]

Its like how batman says " if u kill a killer the number of killers on the planet are the same "

 

[Ender]

If someone truly does repent on death row, should that person still be put to death? It raises other ethical/moral dilemmas.

This is an interesting question, and I think the answer lies with a proper understanding of the nature of punishment. If we sin, even though we may be fully repentant, we still have the debt of punishment to pay. Repentance and even forgiveness do not cancel that debt.

The person must be gradually “healed” of the negative effects which sin has caused in him (what the theological tradition calls the “punishments” and “remains” of sin).
3. At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7). (JPII, General Audience, 9/29/99)

 

[Ender]

I’m not trying to prove something is part of the ‘traditional’ teaching of the Church… only that it is part of the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching is living. If it happened before of after 1995 doesn’t matter in the slightest.

The discussion was regarding the claim in the catechism about what constituted the traditional teaching of the church, and my statement that this claim was factually incorrect.

I refer you to the Church’s approval of burning heretics to the stake six hundred years ago.

What this ought to demonstrate is that just because a pope does or says something doesn’t make it church doctrine, certainly not like a doctrine that has been taught unchanged for 2000 years, and was accepted by the church Fathers almost unanimously, regarding which the First Vatican Council said this:

…it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

 

[Rozellelily]

I agree with the Catholic Church that it should only be used where this is no other practical option-ie:non existent in developed countries.

I am living in Australia,a largely secular country,and we do not agree with capital punishment.
Capital punishment,for any other reason than when there is no other literal option,is associated with uncivilised mentalities and most of the countries that have it,apart from the US,are poor third world countries or “uncivilised” such as Saudi Arabia.

catechism 2267:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[godisgood77]

The discussion was regarding the claim in the catechism about what constituted the traditional teaching of the church, and my statement that this claim was factually incorrect.

JimR-OCDS:

Okay.

So you admit that JPII’s teaching is Church teaching, but not traditional Church teaching? Seems silly…

 

[MonteRCMS]

What about a mob boss? That, along with similar situations, is pretty much the only time I could justify using capital punishment. A mob boss has access to people who have money, weapons, and influence.

They are very careful and let other less careful people do their killing for them.

 

[MonteRCMS]

I agree with the Catholic Church that it should only be used where this is no other practical option-ie:non existent in developed countries.

I am living in Australia,a largely secular country,and we do not agree with capital punishment.
Capital punishment,for any other reason than when there is no other literal option,is associated with uncivilised mentalities and most of the countries that have it,apart from the US,are poor third world countries or “uncivilised” such as Saudi Arabia.

catechism 2267:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

So … how much Mafia infrastructure do you have in Australia?

How many MS-13 members?